United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar & Anr.
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- Ranjan Gogoi
- R. Banumathi
- Judgment Date
- 2017-12-01
- Court Decision / Holding
- 50% of the compensation presently lying in deposit (as per the Order dated 24.02.2012) should be released to the claimant on due identification. Upon a mention by respondents’ counsel, this paragraph is to be read to mean that the amount lying in deposit in the trial Court should be released to the claimant on due identification. The Court thus clarifies the interpretation of the earlier decision and grants interim relief.
- Final Disposition
- Clarification of the earlier decision; order directing release of deposited compensation to the claimant on due identification; broader interpretation to include trial Court deposits.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Respondents
- Sunil Kumar
- Anr.
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Amit Kumar Singh
- • Mrs. E. Enatoli Serna (for Mis. Law Associates)
Counsels for Respondents
- • Ajay Kumartalesara
- • Amit Singh Chauhan
- • Ms. Nidhi
- • Vipin Nair
- • P. B. Suresh
- • Abbay Pratap Singh
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is a Supreme Court Civil Appeal (No. 9694 of 2013) arising from a motor-accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The judgment relates to the interim relief and release of compensation deposited in court, in the context of an earlier order. In paragraph 11 of the Court’s judgment dated 24.11.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2013, the Court stated that, since final disposal of the appeal may take time, 50% of the compensation presently lying in deposit, in terms of the Order dated 24.02.2012, should be released to the claimant on due identification. Upon a mention by the respondents’ counsel, the paragraph was read to extend to the amount lying in deposit in the trial Court, to be released to the claimant on due identification. The document is a clarificatory order clarifying the interpretation of the earlier decision and directing interim relief to the claimant. The case involves a dispute over how and to whom the deposited award money should be disbursed pending final adjudication, balancing procedural safeguards with prompt relief. The order is authored in the Court by Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, with Nidhi Jain noted as the author of the clarificatory order.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The provided excerpt does not contain a full statement of the applicants’ submissions. The Court’s order references the need to clarify the earlier decision and directs that 50% of the compensation deposited should be released to the claimant on due identification. The text suggests the relief sought was interim in nature, aimed at expediting payment to the claimant while final adjudication proceeds, and the language of the order expands the scope from registry deposits to amounts in trial Court deposits upon due identification.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents’ counsel prompted a clarification of the earlier decision, leading the Court to read the directive as applying to deposits in the trial Court as well, to be released to the claimant on due identification, thereby shaping interim relief during the pending appeal.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Earlier decision in Civil Appeal No. 9694 of 2013 | 2017 II S.C.R. 130 | Mentioned Only | Referenced as the decision to which the 11th paragraph of the judgment relates; the excerpt does not provide substantive analysis of that case. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunil Kumar & Anr. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.